Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Rules in Himachal Pradesh Junior Office Assistant Case

Date of the Judgment: 9 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 992

Judges: HRISHIKESH ROY, J. and MANOJ MISRA, J.

Can the government change the rules of a job application after the deadline has passed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the recruitment of Junior Office Assistants (JOA) in Himachal Pradesh. The court examined whether the state government could relax eligibility criteria after the application deadline, impacting the fairness of the selection process. The judgment was authored by Justice Manoj Misra, with Justice Hrishikesh Roy concurring.

Case Background

The case involves multiple appeals against a common judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The core issue revolves around the recruitment process for Junior Office Assistants (JOA), a Class III non-gazetted post, in the state government. The recruitment process was initiated through three separate advertisements, each leading to its own set of legal challenges.

The first advertisement, dated 13.02.2015, was for 1421 posts (Post Code 447). The second, dated 18.10.2016, was for 1156 posts (Post Code 556), and the third, dated 21.09.2020, was for 1869 posts (Post Code 817). The primary point of contention was the relaxation of eligibility criteria after the application deadlines, specifically regarding the recognition of computer diplomas from various institutions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The legal proceedings began with candidates whose applications were rejected for not meeting the prescribed qualifications. They filed Original Applications (O.A.) before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal issued an interim order allowing these candidates to appear for interviews provisionally. Subsequently, the government issued a clarification on 21.08.2017, relaxing the eligibility criteria, which led to further litigation.

Candidates who were initially selected based on the original criteria challenged the relaxation, leading to the matter reaching the High Court. The High Court’s decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology), Class -III, (Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Key provisions include:

• Rule 7: Specifies the essential qualifications for the post of JOA, including educational qualifications and typing speed. The rule states:
  
  “(a) Essential Qualification :
  (i) 10 + 2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University,
  (ii) One year diploma in Computer Science/ Computer Application/ Information Technology from a recognized University/Institution and
  (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi
  OR
  (i) 10 + 2 from a recognized Board or School Education/University.
  (ii) ‘O’ or ‘A’ level Diploma from National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT)
  (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi
  OR
  (i) 10 + 2 from a recognized Board or School Education/University.
  (ii) Diploma in Information Technology (IT) from a recognized ITI/Institution.
  (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi”
• Rule 15: Prescribes the mode of selection for direct recruitment, which may include a viva-voce test, written test, or practical test.
  
  “Rule 15. Selection for appointment to the post by direct recruitment –
  Selection for appointment to the post in the case of direct recruitment shall be made on the basis of viva-voce test, if Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or other recruiting authority, as the case may be, so consider necessary or expedient by a written test or practical test, the standard/ syllabus, etc. of which will be determined by the Commission or other recruiting authority, as the case may be.”
• Rule 18: Confers power on the State Government to relax any of the provisions of the Rules.
  
  “Rule 18. Power to Relax — Where the State Govt. is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, relax any of the provision (s) of these rules with respect to any class or category of person (s) or post(s).”

The court also considered the Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board Act, 1986, and its regulations, which govern the recognition of technical institutions in the state. The Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Regulatory Commission) Act, 2010, was also noted for its role in regulating private educational institutions.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the relaxation of eligibility criteria after the last date for application was illegal and violated the principles of fairness and equality. They contended that the 2014 Rules were clear and did not warrant any relaxation. They further argued that the State government did not have the power to relax the rules without consulting the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the term “recognized institution” in the 2014 Rules was ambiguous and that the relaxation was necessary to accommodate candidates with equivalent qualifications from private institutions. They also argued that the state had the power to relax the rules under Rule 18 of the 2014 Rules and that the relaxation was in the interest of public service.

The State of Himachal Pradesh supported the relaxation, stating that it was a clarification necessitated by the ambiguity in the rules and was done to fill vacancies urgently. They also contended that the relaxation was within the powers conferred by Rule 18 of the 2014 Rules.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether relaxation in the essential eligibility qualifications could be made post the last date fixed for receipt of application from the candidates?
2. Whether the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the 2014 Rules were ambiguous as to warrant clarification or relaxation with a view to declare certain other qualifications as equivalent to the one specified in the said Rules?
3. Whether there was a statutory regime in place to accord recognition to an Institution? If yes, whether the clarificatory letter / relaxation order is in ignorance of such statutory regime and is, therefore, invalid?
4. Whether, in absence of prior consultation with the Commission, the relaxation / clarificatory order could be considered in conformity with the provisions of Rule 18 of the 2014 Rules?
5. Whether in view of requirement for a written and computer typing test prior to selection, possession of one year diploma in Computer Science / Computer Application / Information Technology from a recognised University / Institution by a candidate was not an essential eligibility qualification?
6. Whether candidates holding qualifications other than the one prescribed by the 2014 Rules or the advertisement, though allegedly higher, could be considered eligible?
7. Whether the State (i.e., the employer) could be forced to fill all vacancies advertised; and whether it could be restrained from carrying it forward for filling it as per the amended / new Rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions while arriving at its decision:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directions to re-cast the merit list for Post Code 556 and to fill the remaining posts with the aid of the relaxation order. The court held that the relaxation of eligibility criteria after the last date for applications was illegal and violated the principles of fairness and equality.

The court also held that the 2014 Rules were not ambiguous and that the state government did not have the power to relax the rules without consulting the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The court further held that the possession of a one-year diploma in Computer Science/Application/IT was an essential qualification for the post and that candidates with higher or other qualifications could not be considered eligible.

The court, however, did not disturb the appointments made under the first advertisement (Post Code 447), considering the length of service of the appointees and the absence of specific allegations of nepotism or mala fides.

Authorities and Their Use:

• Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. [CITATION (2013) 11 SCC 58]:* The Court followed this case to emphasize that eligibility criteria must be met by the last date of application.
• Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan [CITATION (2011) 12 SCC 85]:* The Court relied on this to highlight that relaxation of terms in an advertisement requires a power to be reserved.
• Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P. [CITATION (2019) 17 SCC 373]:* This case was used to reinforce the point that relaxation of advertisement terms needs a reserved power.
• Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. State of U.P. [CITATION (2020) 4 SCC 86]:* The Court used this to assert that self-certification cannot determine the equivalence of qualifications.
• Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University [CITATION (2022) 8 SCC 713]:* This case was cited to reiterate that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules.
• Union of India vs Somasundaram Viswanath & Ors. [CITATION (1989) 1 SCC 175]:* This was used to reinforce the principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules.
• P.D. Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [CITATION (1987) 3 SCC 622]:* This was cited to reinforce the principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules.
• Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttaranchal [CITATION (2008) 4 SCC 171]:* This case was distinguished, as it dealt with ambiguity in rules, which was not the case here.
• State of Gujarat vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari [CITATION (2012) 9 SCC 545]:* This case was distinguished as it dealt with relaxation without consultation with the Commission, which was not permissible here.
• Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Sudhakarrao Lavhekar [CITATION (2019) 6 SCC 362]:* This was followed to emphasize that the State has the power to prescribe qualifications.
• State of M.P. vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav [CITATION (1994) 6 SCC 151]:* This was followed to highlight that the State can withdraw an advertisement and proceed afresh.
• Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [CITATION (1975) 3 SCC 76]:* This case was followed to show that the issue of equivalence is a technical one.
• Bank of India vs. Aarya K. Babu [CITATION (2019) 8 SCC 587]:* This case was followed to state that any change in qualification criteria requires a corrigendum.
• Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. [CITATION (2019) 2 SCC 404]:* This case was followed to highlight that a higher qualification does not presuppose a lower qualification.
• Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India [CITATION (1991) 3 SCC 47]:* This case was followed to highlight that a candidate in the merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate.”
• “It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement.”
• “The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of fairness, equality, and adherence to established legal procedures. The court emphasized that any relaxation of eligibility criteria must be done transparently and with due publicity to ensure that all eligible candidates have an equal opportunity to compete. The court also prioritized the need to maintain the integrity of the recruitment process and to avoid any arbitrary or discriminatory practices.

The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, balancing the need to uphold the law with the need to avoid disruption in government services. While the court set aside the relaxation order, it refrained from disturbing the appointments made under the first advertisement, acknowledging the length of service of the appointees and the absence of any specific allegations of nepotism or mala fides.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Strict Adherence to Rules: Governmententities must strictly adhere to the rules and regulations governing recruitment processes.
• No Relaxation Post Deadline: Eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed after the last date for application submission unless a specific power to relax is reserved and duly publicized.
• Transparency and Fairness: All recruitment processes must be transparent and fair, ensuring equal opportunities for all eligible candidates.
• Statutory Regimes: Any relaxation or clarification must be in accordance with existing statutory regimes and legal frameworks.
• Consultation with Commission: Relaxation of rules, especially in matters of eligibility, should be done in consultation with the concerned Public Service Commission.
• Essential Qualifications: Essential qualifications prescribed in the rules must be strictly adhered to, and no deviation is permissible unless it is explicitly provided for.
• Equivalence of Qualifications: Equivalence of qualifications cannot be determined based on self-declaration, and any such determination must be based on established norms and procedures.
• No Right to Appointment: A candidate in a merit list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment.
• Withdrawal of Advertisement: The State can withdraw an advertisement and proceed afresh under new rules.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for all government recruitment processes in India. It reinforces the importance of adhering to established rules and procedures, ensuring fairness and transparency in the selection process. The judgment serves as a reminder that eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed arbitrarily after the application deadline, and that any such relaxation must be based on sound legal principles and after due consultation with the concerned authorities.

The judgment also has implications for candidates seeking government jobs. It emphasizes the need to carefully review the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement and to ensure that all requirements are met by the last date for application submission. Candidates must also be aware that any relaxation of rules after the deadline is likely to be challenged in court and that they cannot rely on such relaxation for their selection.

The judgment also clarifies that the state government cannot be forced to fill all the advertised vacancies and can withdraw the advertisement and proceed afresh under new rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Himachal Pradesh Junior Office Assistant case is a landmark decision that reinforces the principles of fairness, equality, and adherence to rules in government recruitment processes. The court’s emphasis on the need for transparency and adherence to established legal frameworks is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the public service. This judgment serves as a valuable guide for government entities and candidates alike, ensuring that recruitment processes are conducted in a just and equitable manner.

The case highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous rules, the need for transparency in the recruitment process, and the necessity of adhering to established legal procedures. It also underscores the fact that relaxation of rules, especially after the application deadline, is not permissible unless there is a specific power to relax, and that such power must be exercised in a fair and transparent manner. The judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that government recruitment processes are conducted in a manner that is both fair and in accordance with the law.